Saturday, December 21, 2013

Plan to Create Separate Silicon Valley State

Tim Draper, a Silicon Valley venture capitalist, released a plan late Thursday to create the separate state of Silicon Valley. It is part of his notion to break California into six states.

In an email, Draper told TechCrunch that there are five key reasons he’s pushing the initiative:
“1. It is about time California was properly represented with Senators in Washington. Now our number of Senators per person will be about average.
2. Competition is good, monopolies are bad. This initiative encourages more competition and less monopolistic power. Like all competitive systems, costs will be lower and service will be better. 
3. Each new state can start fresh. From a new crowd sourced state flower to a more relevant constitution.
4. Decisions can be more relevant to the population. The regulations in one new state are not appropriate for another.
5. Individuals can move between states more freely.
According to Wikipedia,  Draper invested in and contributed to the development of Skype (acquired by eBay, now sold to Microsoft), Baidu, Overture (acquired by Yahoo!), Parametric Technology, Hotmail (acquired by Microsoft), Tumbleweed Communications, PLX Technologies, Digidesign (acquired by Avid), Preview Travel (acquired by Travelocity), Four11 (acquired by Yahoo!), Combinet (acquired by Cisco), and Redgate (acquired by AOL), among others.

8 comments:

  1. Why would anyone want to start a new state? States are entities that survive by stealing from its inhabitants. A silicone valley state would be a state within a state (CA) within a state (USA). All anti-freedom, immoral entities.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, for all 10000 of us. For the other 399 998000 americans its a eye opener. Breaking up a huge monolithic state would be huge step forward for libertarians

      Delete
    2. No, its not a state within a state. California would be gone. It would just be a state within a state. I'm all for states breaking up into smaller states on whatever level is possible.

      Delete
  2. Number one is actually a pretty sound reason to disband the Senate. If successful, educated Americans don't have an understanding of why we have a bicameral form of representation, then its time to move on and have only a House of Reps (or just the administration as the White House has been pushing for the last couple hundred years). This is not to say that post Amendment 17 we have much in the way of what was intended anyway.

    Number five: He's pushing to separate the state into six states because "individuals can move between states more freely". More freely than what? The tax hungry states will find a way to penalize residents of productive areas who have the misfortune of passing through their borders.

    ReplyDelete
  3. No. 2 ...Monopolies are bad. Why? Aren't most new products and innovations monopolies? Do monopolies force you to buy from them? Standard Oil was once a monopoly and they substantially lowered the price of gas. Alcoa was once a monopoly and they lowered the price of aluminum big time. Often times you make more money when you lower prices. You often lose money when you raise prices. Isn't this all just very basic economics? I would think venture capitalists would know this.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dominating a market because you maximize the efficiencies of scale is not the same as being a monopoly. The U.S. Post Office dominates first class mail because it has a monopoly obtained by using the government to prohibit competition. Standard Oil once dominated the oil and gas industry for a brief time because it was efficient. There was no forced prohibition on others entering the business and so competition or the threat of it always existed. It is that threat that motivates efficiency which results in lower prices and/or higher quality to the consumer. You never get lower prices and/or higher quality from the Post Office or any other true monopoly because it faces no competition. This is generally considered bad for consumers. Drapers idea would be bad for consumers/citizens since states are powerless relative to the federal government and offer no protection to its citizens but they do have some monopolistic power over their own citizens.

      Delete
  4. Ah, the "benevolent" monopoly... Much like the "benevolent" dictator. LOL

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You should boycott all corporations and buy all your products from the state. LOL

      Delete